Atheists More Irrational than Religious in U.S.A.

[KyivAndrew]

Wrong again. You twisted a poll to characterize atheists as “irrational” when in fact the respondents (who claimed to be atheists that believe in god) weren’t really atheists at all.

This is what the original poll concluded from my original OP:
"The Gallup Organization, under contract to Baylor’s Institute for Studies of Religion, asked American adults a series of questions to gauge credulity. Do dreams foretell the future? Did ancient advanced civilizations such as Atlantis exist? Can places be haunted? Is it possible to communicate with the dead? Will creatures like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster someday be discovered by science?

The answers were added up to create an index of belief in occult and the paranormal. While 31% of people who never worship expressed strong belief in these things, only 8% of people who attend a house of worship more than once a week did.”

Into that 31% fell atheists, the “real” and the falsely “self-proclaimed” as you state, compared to ones who actively go to worship. That’s all. I used it as a talking point with my own views. In that 31% one also of course should throw in the irreligious and maybe those who believe something but don’t actively worship: That’s All. The conclusion that only 8% who attend worship are bound to believe in the paranormal stuff is what struck me accompanied by historical studies that showed belief in superstition lower before the Reformation.

I am not going to win with you on common sense because as you’ve stated bizarrely you think the Wall Street Journal is preaching “hate speech” in that article. Every poll has deficiencies and I admit this. My thoughts on the poll were talking points. We are on a **Catholic **internet Forum and I am happy to see you who seem to enjoy slugging Christianity take such interest in belonging to this community. People put up articles to discuss things here. Again, from your answers alleging “hate speech” or hey “chew on this” I don’t think you are open whatsoever to listening but merely reply with anger at times. O.K. fine, you are extremely angry at Christianity, belief in Christ: I get it, you are angry. Nobody here will convince you otherwise so I guess you maybe get your kicks out of posting here. Fine.

On Clifford Orwin and the Enlightenment, the man is an expert on political philosophy and the Enlightenment. He wasn’t casting aspersions on the Enlightenment but just deriding the extreme radical thinkers therein who preached the “perfectibility” of human nature and uselessness of belief in God of Church and who believed that Reason would determine all things in the future.

You believe in morality but no God it seems, which leaves you, I assume, with Reason. Is Human Reason perfect and can it solely be trusted to provide society with morals? Again, how specifically Yankee do you determine what is “evil” in society. In the absence of the Christian God, what is your belief on how one determines what constitutes “evil”? Were the crimes of Soviet Commmunism in which 100 million died “evil” and how so? The people who committed those crimes believed in No God as well and believed they were acting out of pure Reason unadulterated by superstitious religion. They saw themselves as children of the “Enlightenment”. How Yankee would you tell the atheists running those mass killings of kids, moms, dads, nations, that they were committing evil. They relied on belief in Reason alone too. So how would you tell a Stalin or Mao that he was “evil”. Using what criteria specifically?

 

[yankee_doodle]

This is what the original poll concluded from my original OP:
"The Gallup Organization, under contract to Baylor’s Institute for Studies of Religion, asked American adults a series of questions to gauge credulity. Do dreams foretell the future? Did ancient advanced civilizations such as Atlantis exist? Can places be haunted? Is it possible to communicate with the dead? Will creatures like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster someday be discovered by science?

The answers were added up to create an index of belief in occult and the paranormal. While 31% of people who never worship expressed strong belief in these things, only 8% of people who attend a house of worship more than once a week did.”

Into that 31% fell atheists, the “real” and the falsely “self-proclaimed” as you state, compared to ones who actively go to worship. That’s all. I used it as a talking point with my own views.

you were using it as a talking point to insult atheists. I called you on it, you obviously now realize your inferred conclusion was wrong, and you’re trying to back peddle (rather than simply being a stand up guy & conceding it was a back door attempt to validate your beliefs using an unreasonable ad hominem attack on atheists).

It’s always the same gibberish. From using the bizarre beliefs of these irreligious folks, to acting as an apologetic for the churches horrible conduct throughout its history. Rarely have I encountered an intellectually honest Christian.

O.K. fine, you are extremely angry at Christianity, belief in Christ: I get it, you are angry. Nobody here will convince you otherwise so I guess you maybe get your kicks out of posting here. Fine.

Here you go again, I guess you just can’t help yourself. You assume that to disbelieve in your religion necessarily means one is angry at Christ or Christianity.

On Clifford Orwin and the Enlightenment, the man is an expert on political philosophy and the Enlightenment.

I could care less how much esteem you hold this guy in, or how prestigious he is … he puts himself on the other side of the fence in my view when he depicts the enlightenment thinkers as “radical” (and frames them in a negative light).

You believe in morality but no God it seems, which leaves you, I assume, with Reason. Is Human Reason perfect and can it solely be trusted to provide society with morals?

Dude, religion is fiction … so you’re pitting reason against myth. Of course human reason isn’t perfect, but it’s all we have (and all we’ve ever had). So your argument is fallacious because its premise cannot be supported (and indeed the preponderance of the evidence debunks your bible, by any reasonable standard).

Again, how specifically Yankee do you determine what is “evil” in society. In the absence of the Christian God, what is your belief on how one determines what constitutes “evil”? Were the crimes of Soviet Commmunism in which 100 million died “evil” and how so? The people who committed those crimes believed in No God as well and believed they were acting out of pure Reason unadulterated by superstitious religion. They saw themselves as children of the “Enlightenment”. How Yankee would you tell the atheists running those mass killings of kids, moms, dads, nations, that they were committing evil. They relied on belief in Reason alone too. So how would you tell a Stalin or Mao that he was “evil”. Using what criteria specifically?

One ad hominem after another. One logically fallacious argument after another. Now you’re going along the typical Christian path and trying to associate atheism with communism (while the Soviets imposed an atheist or at least irreligious society on Russians and Eastern Europeans, it was communism that imposed atheism not the other way around). Therefore, you’re creating yet another red herring.

Of course I could mention the thousands, even millions who were killed as a result of religious brutality (particularly Catholic brutality and tyranny); but these arguments bear no relevance to the core question, is your religion true? I can think of many ways, using a fictitious faith system, where I could probably inspire people to behave in a certain way (call it a moral way). Just because my faith system might succeed in promoting certain behavior, doesn’t make it true.

A quick lesson on comparative mythology is all one should need to dispense with religion. Perhaps along with comparative mythology, we should also begin to teach formal logic in high school (and perhaps even earlier).

 

[KyivAndrew]

Rarely have I encountered an intellectually honest Christian.
Dude, religion is fiction …

“Dude” you are a perfect advertisement of the dangers of inordinate Pride, which is a sin to the Christian. Your posts I think illustrate the dangers of the dogmatic unrestrained atheist whose only standard for morality is what he thinks is right. Other atheists on this board have been quite “rational” and I have called them that and recognize the “reasonableness” of some of their arguments for atheism – you’re not one of them.

I also think you misunderstand what an ad hominem is. In my posts on communism, I didn’t personally insult anyone unless you want me to praise Stalin.

You’ll probably take the last word as your pride won’t allow you to bite your humble tongue. Humility is a Christian virtue; obviously it is no virtue to you as it is rare to find “an intellectually honest Christian” in your authoritative view.

I think I’ve said all I can now if you are going to hijack this thread. O.K. some more insults…fine…I’m out of this because it is unproductive now with you on board. You don’t even know who Dr. Clifford Orwin is and you dismiss him based on three sentences I quoted from him. That is not logical or reasonable. To your judgment what should it matter? Before you condemn a person, you may wish to investigate actually what that person has written. It is called reasonableness.

Put in the last word if you wish Yankee. I am only wasting time for some reason in responding to you. On a Catholic Forum, it is probably useless to engage someone who believes there are very few intellectually honest Christians. I am glad though for your superior intellectual honesty…dude.

 

[Hobble]

I think… that you two should hug…

 

[josie_L]

I think… that you two should hug…

I think that they need to fight it out first ( kpeople: And in this corner weighting in at 200 pounds of brain muscle the "Cool as a Cucumber Canuck " and in the other corner the ever illusive, the indefatigable “Yankee the Dodger Doodle”), buy each other a beer, and then slap each other on the back (guys don’t do hugs) and become best friends.

 

[yankee_doodle]

“Dude” you are a perfect advertisement of the dangers of inordinate Pride, which is a sin to the Christian. Your posts I think illustrate the dangers of the dogmatic unrestrained atheist whose only standard for morality is what he thinks is right. Other atheists on this board have been quite “rational” and I have called them that and recognize the “reasonableness” of some of their arguments for atheism – you’re not one of them.

when logical arguments elude you … there’s nothing left but ad hominem. I take your criticism with pride (ah yes, more unrestrained pride).

I also think you misunderstand what an ad hominem is. In my posts on communism, I didn’t personally insult anyone unless you want me to praise Stalin.

It’s the inference you were trying to draw (communism/atheism), which is a boring Christian cliche at this point.

You’ll probably take the last word as your pride won’t allow you to bite your humble tongue. Humility is a Christian virtue; obviously it is no virtue to you as it is rare to find “an intellectually honest Christian” in your authoritative view.

you’re right, humility for its own sake is a worthless virtue. It’s insincere.

I think I’ve said all I can now if you are going to hijack this thread. O.K. some more insults…fine…I’m out of this because it is unproductive now with you on board. You don’t even know who Dr. Clifford Orwin is and you dismiss him based on three sentences I quoted from him. That is not logical or reasonable. To your judgment what should it matter? Before you condemn a person, you may wish to investigate actually what that person has written. It is called reasonableness.

I took your invitation and looked the guy up. He seems qualified enough (albeit I disagree with many of his views, such as his anti-nuclear stance; I do agree with others, for instance he likes Leo Strauss, who I also find very interesting).

Put in the last word if you wish Yankee.

last word, “dude”

 

[KyivAndrew]

last word, “dude”

dude

 

[yankee_doodle]

OK not last word. I had some thoughts I wanted to add (but the 20 minute time limit eluded me).

The thing is, to spite what many theists may see as antagonism coming from secular philosophy; really it does try and understand, and even rationalize phenomena like theism. Nietzsche was one of the first to properly understand relativism. He thought that all beliefs, including our belief in progress, will become as relative as all other earlier principals have become; and according to Nietzsche the only way out is to choose delusion rather than truth. In other words, fabricate myth.

I don’t necessarily agree with this aspect of Nietzsche’s philosophy (which basically amounts to nihilism). While from a historical standpoint (at least known history) man has always reverted to myth; I don’t think it’s either necessary or productive for society to allay its fears through myth.

I tend to like analytic philosophy (i.e. British philosophy), because it actually seeks to make sense, and it realizes that philosophy is not the highest of all disciplines (in my view science is the highest of all disciplines).

Why do I think religion is untrue? For the simple reason that it has enough similarity to earlier mythological systems (as shown by research in comparative mythology); and the claims of ancient myth makers have never been validated by observation (that has been subjected to any reasonable level of scrutiny).

In other words I reject religion for the same reason I prefer British philosophy. I prefer common sense and straight forward logic over sophism and nonsense.

The idea of a world without religion is frightening mostly because of our mortality. Most want to think of their deceased loved ones as living on in some manner. Most people don’t want to even entertain the idea that we die, and that’s it. We all do entertain this idea (whether we admit it or not); but it’s almost instinctual to fight away those type of thoughts. However, the instinct exists in our subconscious only because we’ve been indoctrinated with a mythological alternative since our birth (in most cases anyway). If we were never taught religion we wouldn’t entertain those sort of myths, and our mortality wouldn’t present the same type of psychological problem dilemma it does now.

I won’t pretend to know how we would deal with the reality of our mortality if there were no religion. Many say it at least offers hope, but it can only offer hope if you’ve never given serious consideration to the facts. If you understand the mythological roots of religion, the historical pattern of religiosity in general, and the logical implications of various other facts … religion will never have anything to offer. It doesn’t offer hope, because you know it’s untrue. It doesn’t offer anything in the way of moral assistance, because when you know the underpinnings of something is false, you will never accept its guidance without question and doubt. In other words, the authority of religion rests on the truth of its claims. If its claims are false, then it offers no more insight into morality than secular philosophy, jurisprudence, etc.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Why do I think religion is untrue? For the simple reason that it has enough similarity to earlier mythological systems (as shown by research in comparative mythology); and the claims of ancient myth makers have never been validated by observation (subjected to any reasonable level of scrutiny).

In other words I reject religion for the same reason I prefer British philosophy. I prefer common sense and straight forward logic over sophism and nonsense.

What happened to dude? I get you on British philosophy, and I see you reject religion. Does this mean you also reject the possibility of God and, if so, on what logical grounds could you argue for no God?

p.s. I’m probably too tired to take up apologetics now probably but would be interested in hearing your thoughts. Do you believe our universe had a beginning (Big Bang) and does it require a Creator?

 

[edwest2]

I disagree that things used to be better. As I recall, there was once a day when the mob basically ran Chicago, in Catholicisms glory days kings and popes would murder without reason (not that Catholicism was at it’s root, it was the corrupt using the religion as a tool to comit crimes)

I see a lot of the older generation use the “back in my day things were better” lines a lot, but the fact is that things were never better. Every generation has had it’s deal or horrific things to deal with, and every generation has commited horrific things. There has never been such a thing as better days.

That is entirely incorrect. Having lived through the last 40 years, I can say with certainty, backed up with documentation, that things are definitely much worse now. But I will not go into detail so as to not derail the topic.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

If I can comment on one other thing:

I think that yankee is probably referring to the way that religion in general saturates daily life in America, or at least many parts of the country (and we’re talking about all aspects of life here, not just entertainment). You do see religious discourse a lot in daily life here.

Further, religion still has a great deal of political power. For example, it’s widely believed by political analysts that religious voters – motivated at least partially by a desire to ban gay marriage – were responsible for electing George W. Bush twice. Religion still has powerful, powerful effects on the world.

As I already mentioned, there are activists and people in positions of power who want to legislate their beliefs in unconstitutional ways. In Ireland, to take a recent example from elsewhere in the world, the situation is far worse: the Irish government has actually passed a law making it illegal to commit blasphemy. Talk about violating the free speech of individuals! Luckily, I don’t think even the most creative interpretation of the American constitution would allow such a horrible law to be passed here, but I’m sure that there are religiously-motivated folks who would love to give it a shot.

Religion is still a very powerful force in the world, and it does worry those of us who observe that it is inherently irrational, i.e. based on faith, requiring people to accept claims not justified by reason.

As a final comment, I would be careful about lumping together all remotely progressive newspapers and all of the entertainment industry and labeling it “yours” . It’s a sign of sloppy thinking, of a simplistic “us vs. them” mentality. Certainly, many of those things are secular, or at least not explicitly promoting religious values, but that doesn’t by default mean that they have anything to do with atheism. For example, almost all of the atheists I know dislike gory movies – and on top of that, these atheists I know are pacifists who don’t approve of violence.

The entire Western global media is controlled by less than 10 companies. I work in the media and watch what it is doing almost daily. The media, today, is monolithic, and mostly pagan. They literally decide what is news and what is not news. They work in concert with an elite clique of individuals that controls the fashion industry and molds “popular culture” to their image. They can and do report the news responsibly at times, but they dictate the psychological landscape. The current trend is the marketing of fear.

Peace,
Ed

 

[yankee_doodle]

What happened to dude? I get you on British philosophy, and I see you reject religion. Does this mean you also reject the possibility of God and, if so, on what logical grounds could you argue for no God?

p.s. I’m probably too tired to take up apologetics now probably but would be interested in hearing your thoughts. Do you believe our universe had a beginning (Big Bang) and does it require a Creator?

I’ll start with your last question. Yes of course I accept the big bang as fact (or at least we know there was a “big bang” – whether it was the second or third or whatever in a sequence of explosions is still being researched).

Does that necessitate a God or even intelligent designer? Of course it doesn’t. That’s an argument from incredulity (or argument from ignorance), based on a metaphysical causation principal. I think a better question is does it necessitate a preceding cause? In other words, it would seem at the end of the causal chain there would have to be something that always existed, which wasn’t itself caused by anything else.

Aristotle (and Aquinas) would use this sort of argument and conclude, therefore god. But therefore empty space is just as compelling. There are over 500 billion galaxies. There are upwards of 400 billion stars and billions of planets in our galaxy alone. There are trillions of stars and planets (and perhaps solar systems of various types) throughout the universe. I’ve heard it said there’s only a one in several trillion chance something like the earth (and human life) could evolve in our universe. However, looking at the numbers, it seems that’s exactly what happened.

We know there’s at least 13 different species of hominids. Homo erectus is believed to have had an articulate language. We can observe the history of evolution, and have found fossils billions of years old (from a time the earth was only a few hundred million years old). Today we know life can form and survive in very unfriendly environments (which we didn’t think was possible only a few short decades ago).

There are perhaps more answered questions than unanswered ones.

With regard to religion, we know for a fact much of the old testament is factually incorrect. It dates the earth incorrectly, it posits the formation of mankind in a way science tells us is clearly wrong, and many of its stories are impossible from a historical standpoint (for instance the Tower of Babel and Exodus accounts). We don’t even need tools like comparative mythology to debunk the bible, science alone does the job pretty effectively. However, we do have comparative mythology; so from any reasonable standpoint religion is obviously false.

Was there some sort of creator? If there was we have no way of knowing its nature, or whether it even has our best interests in mind. We know it hasn’t shown itself in a verifiable way at any point in human history. We have accounts passed along by myth makers, but we know they’re not true.

All religion really has is a metaphysical argument, which doesn’t even bolster the credibility of any particular brand of religion. It might bolster something like deism (the type of faith held by the most prominent founding fathers of the United States); but you’re not arguing in support of deism (and against the lordship of your Christ) are you? Of course not. You’re trying to use a metaphysical argument to segway into validation of your own faith system, which is logically flawed.

Even if there are good arguments in support of an unknown architect of some sort, your brand of religion doesn’t logically follow (the whole structure of the argument is flawed). Indeed, the evidence debunks your religion, so we have to exclude it as a possibility (reasonably speaking).

So we’re left with nothing, accept assuming the best course is to always assume everything has a natural cause.

 

[yankee_doodle]

The entire Western global media is controlled by less than 10 companies. I work in the media and watch what it is doing almost daily. The media, today, is monolithic, and mostly pagan. They literally decide what is news and what is not news. They work in concert with an elite clique of individuals that controls the fashion industry and molds “popular culture” to their image. They can and do report the news responsibly at times, but they dictate the psychological landscape. The current trend is the marketing of fear.

Peace,
Ed

Notwithstanding your industry experience, I cannot assume anyone has a complete view of the inner workings of the entire global media. Moreover, applying the term “pagan” to the media sounds pretty peculiar? While the term might have a somewhat subjective definition – it seems logically absurd to apply the term in such a broad way to the media.

Nevertheless, whatever the character of today’s media is, it has no bearing on whether or not the claims made by your religion are true?

 

[yankee_doodle]

The idea of a world without religion is frightening mostly because of our mortality. Most want to think of their deceased loved ones as living on in some manner. Most people don’t want to even entertain the idea that we die, and that’s it. We all do entertain this idea (whether we admit it or not); but it’s almost instinctual to fight away those type of thoughts. However, the instinct exists in our subconscious only because we’ve been indoctrinated with a mythological alternative since our birth (in most cases anyway). If we were never taught religion we wouldn’t entertain those sort of myths, and our mortality wouldn’t present the same type of psychological problem dilemma it does now.

Typo – I used the terms “problem” and “dilemma” (synonyms) consecutively (obviously improper usage). Oops … see even I can make mistakes (rare, but it happens ).

Oh yeah, on the hope topic. Religion serves to extinguish real hope (which is a hope in our own abilities).

If someone states, perhaps one day science will discover a way to extend our lives … the religious are the first to tar him as bizarre and unrealistic. It stands against cloning (of all types, even therapeutic cloning), and generally serves to hamper biology (and it even tries to meddle in physics and cosmology).

In many ways it presents the perfect irony. The thing that claims to be the only source of hope, seeks to extinguish (whether intentionally or not) our only true source of hope.

 

[KyivAndrew]

In other words, it would seem at the end of the causal chain there would have to be something that always existed, which wasn’t itself caused by anything else.

Aristotle (and Aquinas) would use this sort of argument and conclude, therefore god. But therefore empty space is just as compelling. There are over 500 billion galaxies. There are upwards of 400 billion stars and billions of planets in our galaxy alone.

How does empty space turn into 500 billion galaxies? Empty space implies no matter, no energy. How do matter and energy come out of “empty space”. And this seems illogical as well. Space and Time came about as a result of the Big Bang, not before it. In other words, no space/time continuum before the Big Bang. We now live in space and time because of the Big Bang. To speak of “empty space” before the Big Bang may be a jump in the dark.

 

[Hobble]

How does empty space turn into 500 billion galaxies? Empty space implies no matter, no energy. How do matter and energy come out of “empty space”. And this seems illogical as well. Space and Time came about as a result of the Big Bang, not before it. In other words, no space/time continuum before the Big Bang. We now live in space and time because of the Big Bang. To speak of “empty space” before the Big Bang may be a jump in the dark.

There must have been space/matter before the big bang, because the big bang was caused by condensed matter/light. Matter cannot be destroyed or created, only transformed. The universe most likely goes through a cycle, expanding, and eventual collapse, which leads to another big bang.

 

[KyivAndrew]

There must have been space/matter before the big bang, because the big bang was caused by condensed matter/light. Matter cannot be destroyed or created, only transformed. The universe most likely goes through a cycle, expanding, and eventual collapse, which leads to another big bang.

Hobble, you know that is still just a hypothesis. Not even the brightest physicists can say with clarity what if anything was before the Big Bang. We have no way of knowing. Sure, I’ve heard the guess that it’s cyclical and the universe expands and collapses but that is just an educated guess, and certainly on no more certain ground than belief in a Creator God, especially looking at the extreme odds of a universe such as ours coming into being with the possibility of life. You know at the Big Bang, if the temperature was off just by an infinitesimal fraction, we wouldn’t be here right now.

I believe I am on rational grounds when I state that mine and Hobble’s ability to communicate over the internet about the universe and God and scientific explanations is more likely the result of us being created by a God with a purpose, rather than me and Hobble communicating right now about life because of some Big, Random Chanced-Upon cosmic event which simply created a material world. We are conscious beings, Thank God.

 

[yankee_doodle]

How does empty space turn into 500 billion galaxies? Empty space implies no matter, no energy. How do matter and energy come out of “empty space”. And this seems illogical as well. Space and Time came about as a result of the Big Bang, not before it. In other words, no space/time continuum before the Big Bang. We now live in space and time because of the Big Bang. To speak of “empty space” before the Big Bang may be a jump in the dark.

well, empty was rhetorical. It would have probably seemed empty, but the matter obviously had to exist. Just a few elements, along with slightly more matter than anti-matter, and boom.

Hobble thinks (as many scientists do) that the universe might recreate itself every several billion years (going through cycles of explosion, formation, continual expansion, eventual implosion, and reformation). I don’t think there’s enough data to make that conclusion. We’re not sure what will happen when the expansion ceases (and whether or not the universe will necessarily implode).

However, whether or not it implodes, it will eventually die (as all stars, even neutron stars and black holes, eventually die). When everything is dead, we might assume the universe will die; but of course matter or energy never truly dies. So even if an end to the expansion won’t result in an implosion, the universe will still die, the matter will still continue to exist, and therefore all the necessary elements of another big bang will be there (so it is reasonable to assume the big bang was just one of many in a really, really long sequence).

 

[yankee_doodle]

Hey, interesting factoid. Here’s an excerpt taken from a New York Times article dated May 16, 1921:

One fact about the presence of the sun spots at this time is that they have appeared at an unusual time. Astronomical observations spread over a number of years have shown that large groups of sun spots show in cycles of eleven years. The last of these eleven year periods was in August, 1917, when the Naval Observatory photographed a large sun spot group the dimensions of which were about 42,000 miles in both latitude and longitude.

query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D0DEED71E3FEE3ABC4E52DFB366838A639EDE

Anyone know what important event also occurred in August of 1917? I encourage all to read this entire article & learn the bizarre phenomena this cyclical solar event can cause.

 

[Hobble]

Hobble, you know that is still just a hypothesis. Not even the brightest physicists can say with clarity what if anything was before the Big Bang. We have no way of knowing. Sure, I’ve heard the guess that it’s cyclical and the universe expands and collapses but that is just an educated guess, and certainly on no more certain ground than belief in a Creator God, especially looking at the extreme odds of a universe such as ours coming into being with the possibility of life. You know at the Big Bang, if the temperature was off just by an infinitesimal fraction, we wouldn’t be here right now.

I believe I am on rational grounds when I state that mine and Hobble’s ability to communicate over the internet about the universe and God and scientific explanations is more likely the result of us being created by a God with a purpose, rather than me and Hobble communicating right now about life because of some Big, Random Chanced-Upon cosmic event which simply created a material world. We are conscious beings, Thank God.

It very well could be because of a God of come sort, it could be coincidence, it could be fate, or collective conscious, there are many possibilities. The cyclical universe model actually goes back to ancient civilizations, and is still taught in hinduism. Ancient civilizations such as the Egyptians and Vedic culture actually had a better understanding of the universe than we do today, Collectively they had extensive knowledge of astronomy, string theory, mathematics, consciousness, spirituality, physics, and even concepts of fringe science like star gates or the omega point. In some of the fields they knew more than we do today, we still don’t even know how to build the great pyramid, and many scientists are realizing now that the pyramid was actually able to conduct electricity (it was build in the fashion of a wire). Anyways, they knew something we don’t, I think they were right about the cyclical universe, the information we’re gathering these days is pointing in that direction.

It seems to me that our understanding of the universe is nearing what they knew. All major religions are built around concepts from ancient beliefs, and seem to teach the same thing, but I think the symbolism in them has been misinterpreted as a result of the politcal clutter involved.